Abstract

 The study investigates the complex interplay among psychological ownership, creative deviance, and organizational intelligence, with a specific focus on the pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan. Utilizing a multidimensional conceptualization of psychological ownership, the research elucidates the implications of the construct on organizational intelligence. On the existing relevant literature, the study set the theoretical foundation testing proposed hypotheses. The study is quantitative in nature where statistical analysis including descriptive statistics as well as inferential statistics was carried out. The data a gathered to an adaptive What's your name and analyzed through SPSS. The findings reveal a significant positive relationship between psychological ownership and organizational intelligence, with creative deviance emerging as a crucial moderating variable. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge and existing literature by identifying the role of the key dimensions of psychological ownership and creative deviance, thereby providing a better understanding of the behaviors and characteristics of intelligent organizations. The outcomes of the study have important implications for the development of strategies aimed at fostering innovation, informed decision-making, and organizational effectiveness.

Key Words

Organizational Intelligence, Psychological Ownership, Creative Deviance, Employee, and Managers

Introduction

All over the world, organizations are trying to find and hire the best talent to foster organizational culture and environment, which can be capable of cultivating emotional as well as psychological capital at the workplace. The current study tries to assess and cater to the role of creative deviance in enhancing organizational well-being. Transforming an organization into a constructive workplace, establishing norms and procedures for better innovative processes, and mechanisms and efficient organizational operations are crucial elements to be focused on (Cristiano, 2013). The interplay of creative deviance, psychological ownership, and organizational intelligence may foster a contribution toward a deeper and better conceptualization of the complex dynamics of the current business world, which underpins, organizational performance and sources (Toukhy, 1998).

Literature Review

All over the world, organizations are trying to find and hire the best talent to foster organizational culture and environment, which can be capable of cultivating emotional as well as psychological capital at the workplace. The current study tries to assess and cater to the role of creative deviance in enhancing organizational well-being. Transforming an organization into a constructive workplace, establishing norms and procedures for better innovative processes, and mechanisms and efficient organizational operations are crucial elements to be focused on (Cristiano, 2013). The interplay of creative deviance, psychological ownership, and organizational intelligence may foster a contribution toward a deeper and better conceptualization of the complex dynamics of the current business world, which underpins, organizational performance and sources (Toukhy, 1998).

Figure 1

Theoretical Framework




Research Methodology

The current study is explorative in nature and tries to investigate the interplay of organizational intelligence, psychological ownership, and creative deviance. The focus is on the pharmaceutical sector of Pakistan, where it aims to examine the effect of psychological ownership of employees on organizational intelligence. However, the study also investigates the role of creative deviance as how it influences the organization process or how it plays its role in this situation. The study has three primary aspects as mentioned earlier which are comprised of 15 different constructs and all of that is divided into an adaptive questionnaire to collect data. The study employs a survey method for data collection. Five-point Likert scale was employed ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree. The data were collected based on questionnaires that were disseminated to the selected sample from the pharmaceutical organizations of Pakistan. And the population was the pharmaceutical companies of Pakistan while the sample size was considered as 292 respondents participated from nine pharmaceutical organizations of Pakistan. We distributed more than 500 questionnaires to nine different organizations in Pakistan. However, we receive 292 responses. To collect the feedback. We applied the method of email, hard-printed copies distribution, and Google forms. 

Data analysis was carried out by implying various tests, both descriptive as well as influential in nature. Analysis shows that a total number of 292 respondents participated in the study which is comprised of 216 means it constitute 74% males, and only 76 females contributed, which constitutes 26%. Similarly, the age distribution of the respondents shows around 12% were between 20 to 25 years bracket, around 33% were between 26 to 31 years of age, 40% showed up in the bracket of 30 to 37 years of age, around 7% were in the bracket of 38 to 42 years, while 5% were found be above 44. It is noted that the maximum respondents was 40% which falls in the bracket of 30 to 37 years. When we examine the respondents and educational background, it shows that around 1% have intermediate-level education, around 35% possess bachelor’s degrees, 50% have master’s degrees and only 15% possess higher education. So, the data analysis revealed that 50% hold a master’s degree, which is the highest or most of the respondents. Similarly, in terms of work experience, the respondent's feedback show that the distribution was based on work experience; around 50% had 0 to 5 years of experience, 20% had the experience of 6 to 10 years, 27% showed up the experience of 11 to 15 years, 2% showed they have experienced between 16 to 20 years while only 1 %  possess experience more than 21 years. Therefore, most respondents had experience between 0 to 5 years which is around 50%.




Table 1 Demographic Analysis

In descriptive statistics, the demographic analysis of the data provides detailed and valuable insight into the characteristic features of the respondents. The demographic analysis shows the difference in gender, age, bracket, education, and experience. If we investigate the details of the demographic we find interesting patterns specifically related to master’s degree holders which suggest that the group may be highly valued in the business and organizations that are contributing better input which is the depiction of informed feedback. The majority of the respondents have experience of less than five years. It is just that the respondents are relatively new in their careers, or they have shifted organizations recently. It also shows the insight that the group of respondents is between the experience ages of 0 to 5 years. We think that such people look for little deviance and better organizational understanding, breaking the norms and coming up with creativity, innovation, and betterment of the organization. The data also suggests that they look for improvement growth and success, and their exploration of personal and professional objectives can lead to better learning, understanding, growth, development, and inclusivity at the workplace. This provides suggestions for a better understanding and insight, which ultimately contributes towards organizational intelligence based on creative deviance and innovation. 

Correlation and Coefficient Statistics

The correlation analysis did posit a positive correlation between organizational intelligence and creative deviance. This indicates that if creative deviance is enhanced, organizational intelligence also increases. Additionally, the analysis depicts that there is a positive and significant association exists between creative deviance and psychological ownership. It also shows that there exists a greater association between organizational intelligence and psychological ownership. If you look at the value in the table provided below, the analysis suggests that the associations are statistically significant, which provides a robust rationale, depicting the association between organizational intelligence and creative deviance. Organizational intelligence and psychological ownership are shown in the table, the results establish a link between the study variables providing evidence to statistical results based on their strength of association.

 

		CD	OI	PO
CD	Creative Deviance	1
OI	Organizational Intelligence	.80**	1
PO	Psychological Ownership	.79**	.84**	1

** Significance level at .01

Table 1. Correlation Matrix of Variables (N=292)

 

 

Regression Analysis

The study hypotheses were tested through regression analysis. The coefficient shows that the independent variables, including creativity, deviance, and psychological ownership have a positive and strong impact on the dependent variable, which is organizational intelligence in the table. The coefficient depicts its contribution as an independent variable, which is already accounted for by other elements. It is a positive and strong interaction between organizational intelligence and psychological ownership, which puts forth a synergistic association and consistency between both variables. Similarly, there is a strong and positive influence of creative deviance on organization intelligence, which detects a significant association between the two variables.

The regression model presents around 67% of the variance in organizational intelligence, which exhibits a robust fit. If we look at the predicted power of the model, it shows its significance with the value of 0.67, while if we look at the standard error of estimation, the value indicates an acceptable precision level. Similarly, psychological ownership yields a good predictor and shows better explanatory power. If we look at the values, the analysis underscores the impact and importance of predicting organizational intelligence, which is comprised of psychological ownership, and the constant term predictor as shown in the table.

 

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.824a	.679	.675	.46841	.679	187.854	1	89	.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), PSY_OWNERSHIP

 

Table 2. Model Summary of Psychological Ownership and Organizational Intelligence

 

The analysis shows a positive correlation between psychological ownership organizational intelligence and other indicators as shown in the standardized coefficient of 0.908. The value of .908 states that every unit in increase in the psychological ownership contributes towards a proximity of 0.908 units in organizational intelligence. The table also shows a standardized coefficient with a value of 0.824, indicating that psychological ownership accounts for a proportion of 82% of the variance in organizational intelligence. If we look at the statistics, the value shows 13.70, which is having value less than 0.001 confirming that the relationship is significant. Therefore, it can be stated that the analysis results show a better value of psychological ownership, which is 0.844, presenting that if there is one unit change in psychological ownership, this would ultimately bring 84 units of change in the other variable. Therefore, this statistical table also shows a significant impact of creative deviance on organizational intelligence, if we look at the value of significance, which is less than 0.01

 

Coefficients
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	.164	.266		.615	.540
	PSY_OWNERSHIP	.908	.066	.824	13.706	.000

a. Dependent Variable: ORG_INT

Table.3

 

The analysis table shows the explanatory power with a value of 74% showing the variation in the outcome variable. If we look at the adjusted coefficient of determination, it shows a value of 0.742, which validates the strength of the model. Additionally, the standard error value provides a satisfactory level of accuracy. Incorporating creative deviance as a predictor variable provides a good appreciation of the model’s performance, and it is comprised of constant and creative deviance, which presents the predicted capability of the model as robust through the outcome variable.

 

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.863a	.745	.742	.41745	.745	259.573	1	89	.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), CD

Table 4. Model Summary of Creative Deviance and Organizational Intelligence

 

The statistical analysis depicts the strength of the association between creative deviance and organizational intelligence. The table shows that for every one-unit increase in creative deviance can be 0.844 units increase in organizational intelligence, which does provide good evidence of its contribution. Similarly, we can see that creative deviance can contribute about 86% of the difference in organizational intelligence which makes it a critical factor. If we look at the combined effect of psychological ownership, as well as creating deviance, we see that there is a profound influence on the dependent variable, which is organizational intelligence. It explains almost more than 70% of its deviation, which demonstrates a significant and clear association among the factors under study.

 

 

Coefficients
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	.570	.202		2.819	.006
	CD	.844	.052	.863	16.111	.000

a. Dependent Variable: ORG_INT

Table 5

 

The analysis is carried out, based on the variables of psychological ownership and creative deviance. It shows a robust explanatory capability of the model, which is more than 70% of the difference in organizational intelligence. The strength of the model is further explained by the coefficient of determination, which has a value of 0.76. If we look at combining both predictors’ values, the explanatory power of the model further becomes more significant as we can look at the values of R square.

 

Model		R	R Square		Adjusted R Square		Change Statistics
							R Square Change		F Change		df1		df2	Sig. F Change
1		.873a	.763		.761		.763		464.684		2		289	.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), CD, PO
Table 6. Model Summary of Psychological Ownership, Creative Deviance, and Organizational Intelligence   The results show that creative deviance and psychological ownership play a vital role in organizational intelligence. If we look at the table, we can see that for every unit increase in psychological ownership, there is approximately 0.164 units increase in organizational intelligence. In a similar manner, if there is a unit increase in creative deviance, that may lead to a 0.134-unit increase in organizational intelligence. The variable of psychological ownership has a slightly stronger effect representing more than 50% of the variation in organizational intelligence. Side-by-side, if we look at the creative deviance, we can see that the value is more than 34%, which is also a significant contribution. The results show that both associations are significant statistically which confirms the imperative nature of the factors contributing to organizational intelligence.
Model				Unstandardized Coefficients				Standardized Coefficients		T		Sig.
				B		Std. Error		Beta
1	(Constant)			.080		.131				.615		.539
	PO			.645		.053		.573		12.220		.000
	CD			.347		.047		.347		7.392		.000

a. Dependent Variable: OI

Table 7

 

The analysis shows that psychological ownership and creative deviance both play a significant role in organizational intelligence. For every unit increase in psychological ownership, organizational intelligence rises by approximately 0.645 units. Similarly, a one-unit increase in creative deviance leads to a 0.347-unit increase in organizational intelligence. Psychological ownership has a slightly stronger impact, explaining about 57.3% of the variation in organizational intelligence, while creative deviance accounts for around 34.7%. Both relationships are statistically significant, confirming the importance of these factors in understanding organizational intelligence. 

Conclusion

In the modern workplace, making use of the most information and experience is a major challenge. This study looked at what makes an organization intelligent and found that several key factors are involved. These include a clear vision, sharing a common purpose, using knowledge effectively, managing pressure to perform, being open to change, having a strong connection to one's work, and ensuring everyone is on the same page. This research also explored the concept of psychological ownership, which is important for organizational intelligence. It is found that individual differences play a significant role in how much ownership employees feel. By studying pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan, this research showed that when employees feel a sense of ownership, it affects their behavior and mindset. The study's findings have important implications for organizations. By focusing on these key factors, businesses can become more intelligent and effective. This means creating an environment where employees feel connected to the company's vision and purpose, where knowledge is shared and used well, and where employees are encouraged to grow and develop. By doing so, organizations can tap into the full potential of their employees, leading to better performance and success. This research provides valuable insights for business leaders and managers looking to create a more intelligent and effective organization. It highlights the importance of psychological ownership and provides a framework for cultivating it in the workplace. By applying the findings of the current study, organizations can unlock the power of their employees and achieve greater success.

Recommendations

Based on the results, this study's analysis highlights the crucial need for organizational intelligence in the workplace, as it enables synergistic collaboration, strategic prioritization, and collective expertise-sharing, thereby augmenting workforce competencies and ultimately enhancing organizational efficacy. By cultivating a culture of knowledge creation, dissemination, and exchange, organizations can harmonize systems, foster cooperation, and mitigate risk through inclusive practices, psychological ownership, and human resource expertise. This, in turn, facilitates informed decision-making and alleviates challenges encountered by employees and managerial staff. The resultant self-governing culture establishes a safe, comfortable, and trustworthy environment, culminating in elevated organizational intelligence. Theoretically, this framework resonates with Social Exchange Theory, which posits that knowledge sharing and idea exchange cultivate heightened trust, cooperation, and collective intelligence among organizational stakeholders. Practically, organizations can actualize this theory by establishing cross-functional teams, and promoting interdepartmental coordination, cooperation, and trust.

References

• Ahmed, R. R., Nawaz, A., Khoso, I., Arif, K. A., & Palwishah, R. I. (2014). Competitive intelligence and marketing effectiveness of organizations: an investigation from Pakistan.

• Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., &Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: a structuration view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 272-289.
• Albrecht, K. (2002). Organizational intelligence & knowledge management: Thinking outside the silos. Executive white paper, Online at: http://www. KarlAlbrecht. com.
• Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperative (p. 48). New York: Atheneum.
• Asad, N., & Khan, S. (2003). Relationship between job-stress and burnout: Organizational support and creativity as predictor variables. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 18(3/4), 139.
• Ashforth, B. E., &Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
• Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human resource management, 48(5), 677-693.
• Bacon, A. M., Lenton-Maughan, L., & May, J. (2018). Trait emotional intelligence and social deviance in males and females. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 79-86.
• Barling, J., Weber, T., &Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827.
• Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290.
• Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290.
• Beaglehole, E. P. (1932). A Study in Social Psychology.
• Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229.
• Blake, S., & Burkett, C. M. (Eds.). (2017). Creativity in Workforce Development and Innovation: Emerging Research and Opportunities: Emerging Research and Opportunities.
• Blau, G. J., &Boal, K. B. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of Management Review, 288-300.
• Burke, P. J., &Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 239-251.